Haryana

Karnal

129/12

Sh. Krishan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surya Hospital & Other - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Surender Kumar

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No. 129 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 29.02.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 14.2.2017

 

Krishan Lal since deceased through his legal heirs (a) Rani Devi (widow), (b) Pardeep, (c) Kavita (d) Sandeep, (e) Surender, all children, all residents of village Balrangran, Tehsil, District Karnal.

 

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

1. Surya Hospital, opposite Chandrachal Banquet Hall, Purshotta Garden, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

2. Dr. Megha Bansal, House no.30, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana

3. A.I.C.L. 54, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi.(deleted vide order dated 11.5.2015.)

4. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Karnal, Haryana.

5. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Karnal, Haryana.

                                      

                                                                            ………..Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shri R.K.Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Virender Adhalaka  Advocate for opposite party no.1

                   Shri Amit Gupta Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                   Opposite party no.3 deleted.

                   Shri Abhishek Chaudhary Advocate for opposite party no.4

                   Shri Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for opposite party no.5.

                  

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint was filed by complainant Krishan Lal (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that  on 17.1.2011, all of a sudden he suffered pain in the lower right end of abdomen, therefore, he and his wife Smt. Rani Devi went to Satyam Ultrasound & X-ray clinic. Dr. Shyam Wadhwa of the said clinic reported “Right Inguinal hernia”. On the same day, he and his wife Smt. Rani Devi approached the opposite party no.1. After examining him and seeing Ultrasound report Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain advised operation of Harnia and explained that if further delay was made Harnia could be harmful. He was told that the operation was minor and he would be relieved after 2/3 hours of the operation and would be required to take bed rest for 1-2 days. After completing formalities, he was taken to operation theatre at about 5.30 p.m. After the operation, he became unconscious and his condition deteriorated. Seeing his critical condition, Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain asked his wife Rani Devi for shifting him to Amritdhara Hospital, Karnal for further treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Amritdhara Hospital in the Ambulance of Surya Hospital and got admitted there by Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain. He remained in the said hospital upto 25.1.2011, but there was no improvement in condition and he became like dead man during that period. Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain used to visit in the Hospital to see his condition. When no fruitful result came out, Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain got him admitted in PGI M.S. Rohtak, where he remained admitted from 25.1.2011 to 11.2.2011. Thereafter, he got followed treatment from PGI MS Rohtak, but could not recover. He could not talk, walk, eat, drink anything and continued to lie on bed like a dead person. Thus, his life ruined due to medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain of Surya Hospital. Prior to the operation, he was doing the work of selling utensils and entire family was depending upon him. He through his wife approached opposite party no.1 for granting compensation, but opposite party  no.1 flatly refused to accede his request.

                   Lateron, opposite parties no.2 to 5 were also impleaded. However, opposite party no.3 was given up and its name was ordered to be deleted vide order dated 11.5.2015.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain as necessary party; that the complaint is false, frivolous and abuse of process of law and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that Krishan Lal approached opposite party hospital on 17.1.2011 with the complaint of pain and swelling in B/L lnguinal Region for the last 8-9 months. Right sided swelling was more than left. While enquiring about the previous history, he informed that earlier the pain used to occur at intervals of 8-10 days, but subside after taking some injections, but for the last 20-25 days, the pain was continuous for relief, he had to take some injection daily. His attendant disclosed that he was chronic bidi smoker and Alcoholic too for the last 25 years. He was examined, investigated and diagnosed to be suffering from Rt. Lnguinal Hernia, while other tests were found to be in normal range. Accordingly, he was advised to undergo surgery for the same. He got himself admitted in the hospital for surgery. The opposite party no.1 i.e. Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain is a well qualified surgeon, and he told all the pros and cons of the surgery to the complainant as well as his attendants namely Smt.Rani Devi and Pardeep Kumar. After obtaining well informed written consent from the patient and his attendant, he was advised to undergo the necessary pre-operative test, which were reported to be in normal range. His chest x-ray revealed prominent bronchovesicular marking. He was taken up for surgery under spinal Anesthesia given by Dr. Megha Bansal at about 5.00 p.m. Right sided lnguinal Hernia was repaired successfully, but while giving incision on left lnguinal region, he suddenly went into cardiopulmonary arrest at 5.48 p.m. due to which procedure was abandoned immediately and he was revived. He was being monitored continuously by Anesthetist since the very beginning of the surgery. Though Cardiac activity had appeared at 5.50 p.m., but he remained unconscious for about an hour. The consultation of Dr. Vivek (Anaesthetist) and Dr. Rohit (Neuro Surgeon)  was sought. The attendants were explained about the patent’s serious status and the patient was shifted to Amritdhara Hospital in an Ambulance duly equipped with oxygen facilities at 8.00 p.m. Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain and Dr. Megha Bansal alongwith Mr. Sanjeev (Hospital staff) accompanied him to see that the he was handed over to Dr. Rajiv Gupta in a perfect condition for further necessary treatment without loss of any time. He was admitted in ICU of Amritdhara Hospital, where he was immediately attended by Dr. Rajiv Gupta, who found his pulse as 96/m, BP as 130/90 mm.hg and oxygen saturated. Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain kept on visiting him in Amritdhara Hospital regularly, but despite best efforts of team of doctors, there was no significant improvement in general condition though he was responding to verbal command. He was being given Ryle’s tube feeding till 24.1.2011. Thereafter, in the afternoon on 24.1.2011, the opposite party hospital received a telephonic call from Dr. Rajiv Gupta that the attendant of the patient wished to be referred to PGI Rohtak. Accordingly, patient was referred to PGI Rohtak.

                   It has been further pleaded that Rani Devi, the wife of the complainant lodged a complaint before Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karnal alleging that opposite party hospital was negligent towards treatment. Thereafter, an Enquiry Committee was constituted to investigate the whole case. Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain and Dr.Megha Bansal were summoned to explain the true facts. An Enquiry Committee was setup by the Chief Medical Officer Karnal at the behest of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to whom the patient party had complained. The Enquiry Committee after considering the record and after recording the statements of all concerned held that during the operation, the patient developed cardio-respiratory arrest and the anesthetist, who was present alongwith treating doctor throughout the surgery took action immediately to revive the patient and another Anesthetist Dr. Vivek was summoned to help in the revival. It was further concluded that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.                The opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been averred that necessary pre-operative tests before surgery were conducted. All routine blood investigation and ECG, x-ray chest revealed no abnormalities. After preloading with 500 ml Ringer Lactatye, 3 cc Sensorcaine heavy was given in spinal Anesthesia at 4.50 p.m., Peak level achieved was T10, oxygen was applied and injection Fortwin (10mg) and phenergan (8mg) was given. Patient was continuously speaking and suddenly at 5.48 p.m., pulse BP became non recordable and patient did not respond to verbal commands. He was resuscitated with external cardiac massage and injection Atorpine and injection Adrenaline, injection hydrocortisone 200mg was given and intubated with 8.5 no. cuffed Endotrcheal tube. IPPV was given with 100% oxygen through bains circuit and within 2 minutes, cardiac activity of the patient appeared and pulse became palpable and gasps of spontaneous respiration appeared, but the patient remained unconscious for about an hour. The attendants were explained about the patient’s serious condition. Finally, the patient was shifted to Amritdhara hospital in an ambulance duly equipped with oxygen facilities at 8.00 p.m. She, Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain and Mr. Sanjeev (Hospital staff) accompanied the patient to see that he reached Dr. Rajiv Gupta in a perfect condition and given necessary treatment without loss of any time. Patient was admitted in ICU of Amirtdhara Hospital, where he was immediately attended by Dr. Rajiv Gupta.The opposite parties no.1 and 2 kept on visiting the patient in Amritdhara Hospital regularly, but despite best efforts of team of doctors, there was no significant improvement in general condition though he was responding to verbal command and was being given Ryle’s tube feeding till 24.1.2011.

4.                Opposite party no.4 also filed written statement submitting, interalia, that it had issued professional indemnity to Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain under policy no.040100/46/10/35/00000998 effective from 26.5.2010 to 25.5.2011 and the standard terms and conditions with exclusion are applicable in the present case. The written statement of opposite party no.1 has been adopted regarding facts and circumstances of the case.

5.                Opposite party no.5 also filed written statement. It has been alleged that the complainant has not disclosed any cause of action against opposite party no.5 or its insured. No particulars about deficiency in service on the part of the insured have been disclosed. Even no opinion regarding alleged negligence from medical expert has been obtained. The insured is a qualified doctor having experience of various successful surgeries. The treatment given to the complainant was in consonance with the established standards of medical jurisprudence. Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain performed surgery with the consent of the complaint and he was shifted to Amritdhara Hospital on his request for further treatment.

6.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of Rani Devi wife of complainant Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Dr.Suhas Kirti Senior Resident, PGIMS, Rohtak Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Dr. Rajiv Gupta Ex.CW3/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 have been tendered. Dr.Rajiv Gupta has also been examined as witness.

7.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Dr. Megha Bansal Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP15, Ex.OP2/B and Ex.OP2/C and Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 have been tendered.

8.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

9.                The complainant was diagnosed to be suffering from “Right Inguinal hernia” and he was advised to undergo surgery for the same by Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain. On 17.1.2011, he was admitted in the hospital for surgery. Pre-operative tests were conducted, which were reported to be normal. Spinal Anesthesia was given by Dr. Megha Bansal and right sided Inguinal Hernia was repaired successfully, but, while giving incision on left Inguinal region, he suddenly went into cardiopulmonary arrest, due to which procedure was abandoned immediately and he was revived. Thereafter, looking into his condition, he was shifted to Amritdhara Hospital by Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain and Dr. Megha Bahsal. He was admitted in ICU, but despite best efforts of the team of doctors there was no improvement in his general condition, therefore, on 24.1.2011 on the asking of his wife, who was attending him, he was referred to PGI Rohtak, but could not recover. He could not talk, walk, eat, drink anything and continued to lie on bed like a dead person. He died during pendency of the complaint on 25.4.2013.

10.              As per allegations of the complainant his life ruined due to medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain of Surya Hospital. On the other hand, the opposite parties asserted in their written statement that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part, rather complainant went it to cardiopulmonary arrest during procedure of surgery. Thus, the matter in controversy boils down in narrow compass and the main question which falls for consideration is whether the complainant suffered from cardiopulmonary arrest during surgery on account of any negligence on the part of Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain of Surya Hospital and Anesthetist Dr. Megha Bansal.

11.              In case of medical negligence, the specific allegations regarding negligence on the part of the doctor have to be proved and the onus of which lies on the complainant. A professional charged with the negligence is to show that he acted in accordance with general and approved practice. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. The doctor has discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient, but such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 considered as to what constitute medical negligence and laid down as under:-

          “Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

          2. Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptance to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial.

          3. A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings; either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.  The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.

          4. The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam’s case (1957) 1 W.L.R. 582, 586 holds good in its applicability in India.”

          5. The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution.

          6. The word ‘gross’ has not been used in Section 304A of IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be ‘gross’. The expression ‘rash or negligent act’ as occurring in Section 304A of the IPC has to be rea as qualified by the word ’grossly.’

          7. To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury which resulted was most likely imminent.

          8. Res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of evidence and operates in the domain of civil law specially in cases of torts and helps in determining the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. It cannot be pressed in service or determining per se the liability for negligence within the domain of criminal law. Res ipsaloquitur has, if at all, a limited application in trial on a charge of criminal negligence.”

 

In Jacob Mathew (supra) the three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborating on the degree of skill and care required of a medical practitioner quoted Halspbury’s laws of England (4^th Edition Vol.30 para 35) as follows:

          “35. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree  of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operation in a different way.”

 

12.              In Martin F. D’Souza Versus Mohd. Ishfaq 1(2009) CPJ 32 (SC),  Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

          “From the principles mentioned herein and decisions relating to medical negligence it is evident that doctors and nursing homes/hospitals need not be unduly worried about the performance of their functions. The law is a watchdog, and not a bloodhound, and as long as doctors do their duty with reasonable care they will not be held liable even if their treatment was unsuccessful.”

          “When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, sometimes have failures. A lawyers cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submission.”

          “Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightway liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to the patient since the professional reputation of the professional would be at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his lapse.”

 

13.            In Revision Petition no.1311 of 2013 titled Rajiv Navath Versus Dr. Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib and others’ (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

          “12. What constitutes Medical Negligence is now well established by a plethora of Rulings of the Honorable Supreme Court of India and by several orders of this Commission. In the Bolam’s case (Bolam Vs. frien Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582. The locus classicus of the test for the standard of care in law, required of  doctor, developed from this landmark case. Mr. Justice McNair, in his direction to the jury, said:

          (a doctor) is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art…Putting if the other way round, a man is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view”.

 

14.              In S.N. Singh (DR.) Versus Devendra Singh & Anr. III( 2011) CPJ 390 (NC),  Hon’ble National Commission while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and held as under:-

          “17. In C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.) MS (Ortho) Vs. S. Ramanujam, II(2009) CPJ 48 (SC)=(2009) 7SCC 130, the Supreme Court held that bald statement of the complainant cannot be accepted to reach conclusion that the Doctor lacked expertise. It is observed that too much suspicion about the negligence of the attending Doctors and frequent interference by Courts could be a dangerous proposition as it would prevent Doctors from taking decision which could result in complications and in such a situation the patient will be the ultimate sufferer.”

 

15.              Hon’ble National Commission in Mohd. Abrar Versus Dr. Ashok Desai and others, 2011 CTJ 613 (CP) (NCDRC) has observed as under:-

          “ The medical practitioners cannot be treated as magicians or demi-Gods. They are fallible human beings. The liability to pay compensation may arise only when the complainant proves that the causation was result of negligence committed by the medical practioner and there was clear material available to foresee the injury.”

 

16.              It is well settled principle of law that a physician cannot assure the patient of full recovery in every case.  A surgeon cannot guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be successful, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated upon. The only assurance, which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practicing and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is all what the person approaching the professional can expect. A medical practitioner cannot be held liable, simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment, in choosing one reasonable course of treatment, in preference to another. A medical practioner would be liable, only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practioner of such field.

17.              Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that due to negligence in giving Anesthesia by Dr. Megha Bansal and performing operation by Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain the complainant suffer from cardiopulmonary arrest due to which he became like a dead person and could not recover properly. He could not talk, walk, eat and drink anything and continued to lie on the bed. He ultimately died during the pendency of the complaint. It has further been argued that the complainant was shifted by Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain and Dr. Megha Bansal to Amritdhara Hospital when they could not handle the situation and the condition of the complainant became serious. Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain regularly visited him till he remained admitted in the said hospital and the said doctor even got him admitted in PGIMS Rohtak. These facts and circumstances indicate that there was no proper facility in the hospital opposite party no.1 to tackle such emergent situation and there was certainly negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 hospital.

18.              On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 contended that Anesthesia was administered by Dr. Megha Bansal, who is qualified Anesthetist as per standard medical procedure and operation was also performed by Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain as per standard medical procedure. There was not negligence or deficiency in service on their part, but all of a sudden the complainant suffered cardiopulmonary arrest. However, the complainant was immediately revived. Consultation of Dr. Vivek (Anaesthetist) and Dr. Rohit (Neuro Surgeon) was also sought. Looking into the serious condition, he was shifted to Amritdhara Hospital in Ambulance duly equipped with oxygen facilities. Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain and Dr. Megha Bansal accompanied him. He was admitted in ICU and best efforts were made by the team of doctors to treat him. In this way, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the doctors of Surya Hospital.

19.              The facts of the present case are to be analyzed keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in the aforediscussed authorities. Complainant got done ultrasound and x-ray from Satyam Ultrasound & X-ray clinic. Dr. Shyam Wadhwa of the said clinic reported “Right Inguinal hernia”. Thereafter, complainant and his wife approached opposite party no.1, where Dr.Kamal Bhushan Jain after examining him and seeing ultrasound report advised operation for Hernia. On the same day, the complainant was admitted. Dr. Megha Bansal gave Spinal Anesthesia and Dr. Kamal Bhushan performed surgery and repaired right sided Inguinal hernia successfully, but while giving incision on left Inguinal region, he suddenly went into cardiopulmonary arrest due to which procedure was abandoned immediately and he was revived. Even consultation of Dr.Vivek (Anesthetist) and Dr.Rohit (Neuro surgeon) was also sought, but looking into the condition of the complainant he was shifted to Amritdhara Hospital. There is nothing on record to establish that the Anesthetist and Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain did not follow the standard medical procedure for giving spinal anesthesia and performing operation upon the complainant for repairing right sided Inguinal hernia. No medical research paper could be brought to the notice of this forum by learned counsel for the complainant, which may show that cardiopulmonary arrest suffered by the complainant during surgery was on account of any negligence on the part of the Anesthetist or Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain, who was performing surgery. A doctor cannot be held negligent until and unless it is proved that he had not given proper Anesthesia and not performed surgery properly or that he had chosen wrong line of treatment which is not adopted for such purpose. If, the doctor adopted the standard medical procedure, he cannot be held negligent in any manner.

20.              It is not in dispute that Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain and Dr. Megha Bansal shifted the complainant to Amritdhara Hospital when his condition remained serious and he could not recover fully after cardiopulmonary arrest. Even, Dr. Vivek (Anesthetist) and Dr. Rohit Gupta (Neuro Surgeon) were consulted before shifting the complainant to Amritdhara Hospital. As per case of the complainant Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain even regularly visited him in Amritdhara Hospital. Thus, it is emphatically clear that Dr. Kamal Bhushan Jain and Dr. Megha Bansal did their best efforts for recovery of the complainant. Shifted the complainant to Amritdhara Hospital for further treatment does not lead to the conclusion that there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the doctors of opposite party no.1

21.              Before parting, it is also worthwhile to add that the wife of the complainant Smt. Rani Devi made complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Karnal regarding negligence of the doctors of opposite party no.1 and on that medical board was constituted by Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karnal. The Medical board consisted of Anesthetist, Surgeon, Medical Officer and Senior Medical Officer and they submitted report that there was no negligence on the part of the doctors while performing operation and proper treatment was given as per the condition of the patient. Dr. Rajiv Gupta of Amritdhara Hospital also appeared as witness and stated that the patient could be revived and brought to Amritdhara Hospital due to prompt accurate management given at Surya Hospital, after the cardiopulmonary arrest. He also stated that cardiopulmonary arrest can occur in any person at any time. As per medical record the cardiopulmonary arrest had taken place at 5.48 p.m. and cardiac activity reappeared at 5.50 p.m.  but the complainant remained unconscious for about one hour. Thereafter, Dr. Vivek and Dr. Rohit were consulted and then at 8.00 p.m. he was shifted to Amritdhara Hospital. Thus it is established that doctors of opposite party no.1 took prompt action after cardiopulmonary arrest of the complainant and they shifted him, at the earliest, to Amritdhara hospital,l when his condition remained serious. Under such facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant/his legal heirs failed to prove that there was any medical negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the doctors of opposite party no.1, while giving anesthesia and performing surgery for repairing the Right Inguinal Hernia.

22.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.02.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member